The vRS will feel quicker, but when you look at the speedo you'll notice it saying more numbers

The vRS will feel quicker, but when you look at the speedo you'll notice it saying more numbers

I can honestly say mine has surprised me with the things it can keep up with, it feels quick, and is quick.

The vRS will feel quicker, but when you look at the speedo you'll notice it saying more numbers

Not when I tested it!

You didn't try hard enough!

It needs a louder exhaust too, I found the same issue with the Golf R32 I tested

My brother's E350 petrol feels quite a bit slower than my standard vRS petrol.

Figures state Merc 6.8 to 62, vRS 7.2.

As said above, NA vs Turbo can make a car feel quite different.

I had a Chimaera 4L HC (circa 5.0 secs to 62) and, although properly fast once above 4000 revs, it didn't feel that much quicker than the Octy in day to day driving!

You lot seriously make me want to buy a TSI and remap it...............

I testdrove the S5 V8 and The A5 3.0 TDi bact to back. This was back in 2008 when they where both released. I have to say that the 3.0TDi was the car that impressed me the most of the two. I guess I was in the same boat as you, that I had to high expectations to the S5 performance. The N/A does not give you any kicks. The 3.0TDi on the other hand; It was so non-diesel like in the caractere. I would love to try one that has been remapped, and with a Milltek It sounds quite good to. With som tweeks they handle very well allso. But if you wan't a rapid and quick Audi with 4wd I would pick an S3 or TTS over the S5.

I think the 3.0TDI remapped with a miltek could be the way forward. That way I would have A5 quality and similar performance 0-60 and nicer feeling mid range than the S5. I love the vrs but I always want more.

It's just the lack of getting that power down in lower gear that I hate.

A mate has the A5 3.0TDi. Nice car, but TBH if you want a fast diesel coupe then I'd go for a 335d and get that mapped. Interior just as nice as the audi, rwd, nicer handing and if you go for the SE then it rides better than an S-line Audi.

02p etc.

or go for a 330d remapped, as the 330d goes from 231bhp to 300bhp

whereas the 335d goes from 271bhp to 306bhp,

there's not alot left to remapped on the 35d twin turbo engine.

stage 2 330d is approx 330bhp. i happen to know someone running a 330d with 346bhp and he got 37.2mpg fover a 40min drive where he was showing off the performance of the car to me

A mate has the A5 3.0TDi. Nice car, but TBH if you want a fast diesel coupe then I'd go for a 335d and get that mapped. Interior just as nice as the audi, rwd, nicer handing and if you go for the SE then it rides better than an S-line Audi.

02p etc.

Personally, I like the looks of the A5 better, and I have seen some light modified ones keep a suprisingly good pace on track. Comming form a S-Line A4 to the VRS, I can confirm that the ride in the S-Line cars is quite harsh. The A5 I drove vas a non S-Line and i perfer that for a daily driven car. So if it was my decision I would go for the A5.

I think the 3.0TDI remapped with a miltek could be the way forward. That way I would have A5 quality and similar performance 0-60 and nicer feeling mid range than the S5. I love the vrs but I always want more.

It's just the lack of getting that power down in lower gear that I hate.

Have you driven S3 or TTS? Getting the power down in lower gear is what they do so good.

Have you driven S3 or TTS? Getting the power down in lower gear is what they do so good.

I haven't and if I did I'd probably want one straight away. I had a v6 tt mk 1 about 6 years ago and you could bury the accelerator in every gear with no loss of traction whereas my vrs struggles up to 4th and even in 4th and 5th in the wet. I am told that a proper diff improves things significantly but I don't understand how it can defy the laws of physics whereby under hard acceleration weight transfers to the back resulting in loss of traction on the front wheels. Anyway, as much as I love my vrs and its performance at cruising speeds where you can use all the power and torque I want something 4wd next and as said before an s4 v6 or golf r are the current favourites.

from those, s4 would be my choice - proper quattro vs. haldex in the golf.

Have you driven S3 or TTS? Getting the power down in lower gear is what they do so good.

I haven't driven either to be honest. Maybe the S3 remapped or any of the cars mentioned above would be a better bet. The interior of the S5 was a lot nicer than an S3 which I enjoyed about the S5.

I've only had my vrs 7 months and already want more. I'm a nightmare for my mrs with cars!

What's different between the haldex and quattro then?

IIRC quattro is a permanent four wheel drive system, where the haldex only sends drive to the rears when you lose traction at the fronts. Ie you have to have some slip before the system reacts.

I can see why they do it that way - it means you're not having the 4wd transmission losses when you're just cruising on the m-way, but the downside is that it needs that time to react.

I've not driven an "R" by the way, so I've not experienced haldex on that vehicle - I've driven both mk4 and mk5 R32 golfs with haldex however, but on those (both NA of course) you don't get the big wallop of torque you'd have with the turbo'd car - especially as I'm guessing that if you got an "R" you'd probably get a re-map?!

Certainly would get a map. That's the beauty of turbos! The map on my vrs was amazing and I guess the same could be said for the 2.0 with the K04 turbos.

from those, s4 would be my choice - proper quattro vs. haldex in the golf.

Not to mention the 328bhp vs 265bhp (although not sure how the power to weight ratios compare though)so probably my choice too. Plus the Avant has a decent boot.

IIRC quattro is a permanent four wheel drive system, where the haldex only sends drive to the rears when you lose traction at the fronts. Ie you have to have some slip before the system reacts.

I can see why they do it that way - it means you're not having the 4wd transmission losses when you're just cruising on the m-way, but the downside is that it needs that time to react.

I've not driven an "R" by the way, so I've not experienced haldex on that vehicle - I've driven both mk4 and mk5 R32 golfs with haldex however, but on those (both NA of course) you don't get the big wallop of torque you'd have with the turbo'd car - especially as I'm guessing that if you got an "R" you'd probably get a re-map?!

S4 or R it would be getting remapped for sure

I wonder if you were to find a 4x4 Octavia, and then strip the bits off, how it would fit on our VRS.....

I wonder if you were to find a 4x4 Octavia, and then strip the bits off, how it would fit on our VRS.....

Maybe you should try and let us all know! Why the hell is the vrs fwd anyway?

Lol, not this year, need to got all my other bits first, but I certainly wouldnt throw out the plan altogether, in theory I think it could be done for less than a grand!

Not worth the hassle in my opinion. I would rather buy something 4wd by design.

Certainly would be easier. How would a RWD 335i feel compared to a vrs? Anyone know?

335 has power to weight of 192 so acceleration once moving would be similar I reckon to vrs tsi at stage 1. The 335 would get the power down in lower gears so much better and handle much better due to rwd. The 335 would be a nicer place to be but then it's 35k. Also it's twin turbo and remaps such that it is actually quicker than the previous generation m3.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I reckon stage 1 TSI will keep with E46 M3 anyway from arolling start. The 335 doesn't look as nice as the vrs though IMO or the S5.